Liberals Attack Against McChrystal Begins

[nodoginnafight]

....

But trying to grind a political ax on our soldiers is what you are doing and I don't appreciate it.

IMO, it's more important what the folks on the ground appreciate. Their commander has asked for help for them.

My opinion is that is important as well. It's not necessarily the ONLY important thing, but it is very important.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I say you make assumptions her that not only can you not back up with evidence, but that evidence appears to contradict.

I say war is messy and people die - soldiers and even innocent non-combtants - and that must be weighed into the decision to wage war. Don't wage a war if you have no stomach for war.I also say criticisms that stem from political motives yet hide beneath the cloak of concern for our soldiers is one of the most despicable things I frequently encounter on these boards.
I further say that troop levels should be set to achieve the goals of the mission and that when those goals are met, we should be able to bring our soldiers home.

_____

No - don't wage war if you don't intend to WIN IT. This president campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war" -so by your own criteria, it would appear this same president has engaged in a despicable thing - waging war only for political motives.

So I ask again - do we remain and fight in Afghanistan or do we pull out? Do we follow McChrysta's advice, or remain undecided?

Provide what the president has not - an answer to that question...

Defeat is not an option.

You think Obama got his ass handed to him by the IOC?

That is just a grain of sand on a beach of humiliation if he forfeits the Afghanistan to the Taliban.

If the Afghan people choose the Taliban - the Taliban is what they are going to get. No matter how many people we kill over there. It appears many failed to learn the lessons of 'Nam. It's not a matter of national pride - it is a matter of national security. If our security interests are met, then whether we tick one off in the W column is irrelevent. Too many view war as a game to be won or lost. It's an infantile and very dangerous approach imho.

 

[G.T.]

A war isn't a football game - what does "win it" mean in YOUR opinion? What does it mean in Obama's opinion? What does it mean in McChrysta's opinion? What does it mean in the eyes of the American people? In the eyes of the world? Which of those opinions are the ones that really matter? What if they are in conflict? Whose opinion should prevail?

So far, I think Obama is doing fine - I am very interesting in what direction we decide to take at this point.

But trying to grind a political ax on our soldiers is what you are doing and I don't appreciate it.

Just once more. It felt necessary.

 

[Si modo]

....

But trying to grind a political ax on our soldiers is what you are doing and I don't appreciate it.

IMO, it's more important what the folks on the ground appreciate. Their commander has asked for help for them.

My opinion is that is important as well. It's not necessarily the ONLY important thing, but it is very important.

The combat troops' needs are not the only issues, agreed. But we have no evidence of ANY other issues being considered by the boss. I am really trying to understand why there is such a delay in deciding whether to help combat troops or not.

 

[Contumacious]

The War-Losing Losses of the U.S. in Afpak Are Rarely Noted in the U.S. Media​

The death of 8 US soldiers in the mountains of Eastern Afghanistan a few days ago has received saturation coverage in the US Media, mostly intended obviously to increase the grim resolve to continue the war in perpetuity, which is what the U.S. commander McChrystal is really, secretly proposing in his Plan to win the war against the rising tsunami of guerilla forces fighting the US


...they are now facing a pretty united, vast Pashtun nation with at least 10 million men able to bear arms effectively against the loathed Infidel Invaders. McChrystal is desperately planning to retreat to the cities to save his vanity – avoid losing. But all those millions of fighters live in the mountains and on the plains far away. He plans to enrage them further by sending Death Squads out from the cities – his specialty as former head of the Special Ops black ops. That would unite them fiercely against the US and the puppet, totally corrupt regime of Karzai.

The US will probably stay and pay an immense price over the years to save the vanity of the military commanders and Obama hiding in Washington. The US will owe much of these losses to the imbedded Media which do not report on how enraged the people have become in all of Afpak and the whole Muslim world over the day-after-day slaughters of women and children from the skies by US Hellfire missiles fired by Bush and Obama.

.

 

[woodjack]

Listen it is very very simple, either send more troops or unfetter the Air Force, with the current policies that I have seen we need more troops because we leashed the Air Force and the direct response to that was increased attacks against us. So if some people are saying no troops that is fine, unfetter the Air Force, you cannot have it both ways period.

Life has little value in Afganistan, you cannot fight a war where we are at and treat people like they were Americans, we learned that lesson in Iraq they were set free and did not know how to act, these people like the Iraqis have not known freedom just harsh treatment and conditions where the value of life is meaningless, or else they would not be setting up camp in Mosques, hospitals and schools. they use that propaganda to further there cause in different parts of the world like here when a civilian gets killed our media shows it and the bleeding hearts come out, They coukl care less about the causualties it is just propaganda to get what they want period.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The combat troops' needs are not the only issues, agreed. But we have no evidence of ANY other issues being considered by the boss. I am really trying to understand why there is such a delay in deciding whether to help combat troops or not.

I think it is a false assumption that sending more troops = helping our combat troops and not sending more troops = screwing the guys already on the ground.

But I do favor a "shit or get off the pot" (apologies) approach at this point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Listen it is very very simple, either send more troops or unfetter the Air Force, with the current policies that I have seen we need more troops because we leashed the Air Force and the direct response to that was increased attacks against us. So if some people are saying no troops that is fine, unfetter the Air Force, you cannot have it both ways period.

Life has little value in Afganistan, you cannot fight a war where we are at and treat people like they were Americans, we learned that lesson in Iraq they were set free and did not know how to act, these people like the Iraqis have not known freedom just harsh treatment and conditions where the value of life is meaningless, or else they would not be setting up camp in Mosques, hospitals and schools. they use that propaganda to further there cause in different parts of the world like here when a civilian gets killed our media shows it and the bleeding hearts come out, They coukl care less about the causualties it is just propaganda to get what they want period.

Don't get me wrong - I think there is some truth in what you say - it's just that I am old enough to have heard the same (almost word for word) arguments about Vietnam.

 

[woodjack]

Listen it is very very simple, either send more troops or unfetter the Air Force, with the current policies that I have seen we need more troops because we leashed the Air Force and the direct response to that was increased attacks against us. So if some people are saying no troops that is fine, unfetter the Air Force, you cannot have it both ways period.

Life has little value in Afganistan, you cannot fight a war where we are at and treat people like they were Americans, we learned that lesson in Iraq they were set free and did not know how to act, these people like the Iraqis have not known freedom just harsh treatment and conditions where the value of life is meaningless, or else they would not be setting up camp in Mosques, hospitals and schools. they use that propaganda to further there cause in different parts of the world like here when a civilian gets killed our media shows it and the bleeding hearts come out, They coukl care less about the causualties it is just propaganda to get what they want period.

Don't get me wrong - I think there is some truth in what you say - it's just that I am old enough to have heard the same (almost word for word) arguments about Vietnam.

Thanks I see your point, but my premise is that Obama is not going to withdraw he is not going to do it as of now or this year and next year, so either put more boots on the ground or unfetter the airforce till we withdraw or set up camp there. So far the only thing coming from obama is we are not going to withdraw so that is why I point to these options. I mean I could debate about pulling out but we are there now and in the foreseeable future, so those are the options on his table.

 

[Missourian]

_____

No - don't wage war if you don't intend to WIN IT. This president campaigned on Afghanistan being the "right war" -so by your own criteria, it would appear this same president has engaged in a despicable thing - waging war only for political motives.

So I ask again - do we remain and fight in Afghanistan or do we pull out? Do we follow McChrysta's advice, or remain undecided?

Provide what the president has not - an answer to that question...

Defeat is not an option.

You think Obama got his ass handed to him by the IOC?

That is just a grain of sand on a beach of humiliation if he forfeits the Afghanistan to the Taliban.

If the Afghan people choose the Taliban - the Taliban is what they are going to get. No matter how many people we kill over there. It appears many failed to learn the lessons of 'Nam. It's not a matter of national pride - it is a matter of national security. If our security interests are met, then whether we tick one off in the W column is irrelevent. Too many view war as a game to be won or lost. It's an infantile and very dangerous approach imho.

The lesson from Vietnam was let the military wage war, not politicians or the public, so in that we agree, the lesson was not learned.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I have to return to what I posted earlier. I think the difference between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that imho the afghan war was justified - the Iraq war was not. So it that respect I agree that Afghanistan was "the Good War" so to speak.
But I think they share one thing in that we engaged in both without clearly defining what the goals of the mission were. So it is impossible to say when those goals have been met and the war is "over."

And the similarities in both Iraq and Afghanistan with 'Nam is that without the committment of the locals - you're just pissing in the wind - imho.

 

[Si modo]

The combat troops' needs are not the only issues, agreed. But we have no evidence of ANY other issues being considered by the boss. I am really trying to understand why there is such a delay in deciding whether to help combat troops or not.

I think it is a false assumption that sending more troops = helping our combat troops and not sending more troops = screwing the guys already on the ground.

But I do favor a "shit or get off the pot" (apologies) approach at this point.

No false assumption at all. I read McChrystal's recs for more resources - troops and otherwise - and his analysis of the ramifications of not doing so. But, disagreeing on that point is fine. I don't expect all to see it the same way I do especially whenever we've both been rational in the discussion.

I also favor shit or get off the pot, too. (I appreciate the consideration in language, but I can take it. If I couldn't; I'd have no business being here. ).

 

[nodoginnafight]

The lesson from Vietnam was let the military wage war, not politicians or the public, so in that we agree, the lesson was not learned.

We didn't lose in Vietnam because politicians or the public thwarted the military. We lost because the locals had no stomach for the fight in the first place.

 

[Missourian]

The lesson from Vietnam was let the military wage war, not politicians or the public, so in that we agree, the lesson was not learned.

We didn't lose in Vietnam because politicians or the public thwarted the military. We lost because the locals had no stomach for the fight in the first place.

I think you need to revist your history lessons:

When the US departed, the metrics all seemed to point in the right direction. The South Vietnamese armed forces had grown to over 1 million men. Ninety-seven percent of villages and hamlets were rated secure. A National Intelligence Estimate from 1974 indicated that the South Vietnam's army was "strong and resilient," and even North Vietnam's own leaders did not believe they could conquer the South until 1976.

To win in Afghanistan Obama must learn from Vietnam | csmonitor.com
​

Interesting article BTW.

 

[WillowTree]

Kind of reminds you of how the conservatives treated General Eric Shinseki doesn't it?

Actually alot of us to this day agree with Shinseki. Rumsfeld was wrong about trying to win the war with such a small force.

So what is wrong with McChrystal asking for a bigger force to fight the war with? Thats supposedly what Obama promised us when he was campaigning. Or let me guess...that was yet another promise we'd never see come to fruition?

What is more troubling is that it appears the now growing liberal attack campaign against McChrystal stems from simple defense of Obama - not what is best for the troops, the Afghan campaign, or longer term international policy.

These people appear to place devotion to Obama above all else...

Have they called the good General a racist yet?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The lesson from Vietnam was let the military wage war, not politicians or the public, so in that we agree, the lesson was not learned.

We didn't lose in Vietnam because politicians or the public thwarted the military. We lost because the locals had no stomach for the fight in the first place.

I think you need to revist your history lessons:

When the US departed, the metrics all seemed to point in the right direction. The South Vietnamese armed forces had grown to over 1 million men. Ninety-seven percent of villages and hamlets were rated secure. A National Intelligence Estimate from 1974 indicated that the South Vietnam's army was "strong and resilient," and even North Vietnam's own leaders did not believe they could conquer the South until 1976.

To win in Afghanistan Obama must learn from Vietnam | csmonitor.com
​

Interesting article BTW.

I don't doubt that they're many who cling to that notion. I do not. I guess they arrived at their conclusions by counting "drag marks."

But cling to whatever you feel you need to.

 

[bodecea]

Actually alot of us to this day agree with Shinseki. Rumsfeld was wrong about trying to win the war with such a small force.

So what is wrong with McChrystal asking for a bigger force to fight the war with? Thats supposedly what Obama promised us when he was campaigning. Or let me guess...that was yet another promise we'd never see come to fruition?

What is more troubling is that it appears the now growing liberal attack campaign against McChrystal stems from simple defense of Obama - not what is best for the troops, the Afghan campaign, or longer term international policy.

These people appear to place devotion to Obama above all else...

Have they called the good General a racist yet?

Was he wearing a white hood?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yes how long will it be before the "good" Liberals begin to viciously attack and smear this honorable man's children? Lets hope most Americans don't buy into this latest despicable Liberal Smear Campaign.

 

[Sinatra]

The War-Losing Losses of the U.S. in Afpak Are Rarely Noted in the U.S. Media​

The death of 8 US soldiers in the mountains of Eastern Afghanistan a few days ago has received saturation coverage in the US Media, mostly intended obviously to increase the grim resolve to continue the war in perpetuity, which is what the U.S. commander McChrystal is really, secretly proposing in his Plan to win the war against the rising tsunami of guerilla forces fighting the US


...they are now facing a pretty united, vast Pashtun nation with at least 10 million men able to bear arms effectively against the loathed Infidel Invaders. McChrystal is desperately planning to retreat to the cities to save his vanity – avoid losing. But all those millions of fighters live in the mountains and on the plains far away. He plans to enrage them further by sending Death Squads out from the cities – his specialty as former head of the Special Ops black ops. That would unite them fiercely against the US and the puppet, totally corrupt regime of Karzai.

The US will probably stay and pay an immense price over the years to save the vanity of the military commanders and Obama hiding in Washington. The US will owe much of these losses to the imbedded Media which do not report on how enraged the people have become in all of Afpak and the whole Muslim world over the day-after-day slaughters of women and children from the skies by US Hellfire missiles fired by Bush and Obama.

.

Ah - war discourse from a 9-11 Truther.

 

[Fatality]

And so one of the most highly regarded military commanders of the modern era now faces attacks from the liberal left of America for having the audacity to speak his mind regarding Afghanistan - the very conflict he was hand-picked to oversee by the Obama White House...

____

Sack the general; stop the war
Gen. McChrystal the lobbyist is wrong about Afghanistan

Wednesday, October 07, 2009
By Dan Simpson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

what part of "don't post an article in its entirety don't you get, exactly?-del



Read more: Sack the general; stop the war

___

Sack the general; stop the war

what school yard names have they come up with for him? anything like "betrayus" yet?